If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Well compared to the complete revamp from scratch of KDE's subsystems, Gnomes changes are less aggressive and carry a relatively small delta compared to KDE 4's goals. There isn't too much legacy code in KDE 4.

Most of the things changed in KDE4 are not visible by the end user as well. In term of UI design, KDE4 has not changed much of the previous known paradigm in KDE3.
The underlying technology used by Gnome 3.0 may not have a total redesign (despite the use of new components like clutter, vala and other things) but the changes will be more visible from a user point of view.

Most of the things changed in KDE4 are not visible by the end user as well. In term of UI design, KDE4 has not changed much of the previous known paradigm in KDE3.
The underlying technology used by Gnome 3.0 may not have a total redesign (despite the use of new components like clutter, vala and other things) but the changes will be more visible from a user point of view.

What?!? Have you seriously even looked at a KDE 4.x screen compared to a KDE 3 screen? Seriously, have you?

What?!? Have you seriously even looked at a KDE 4.x screen compared to a KDE 3 screen? Seriously, have you?

Yes, and I've even tested it. You always have a menu/task bar, with small desktop radars etc... What I mean, is that the global UI design always uses old paradigms inherited from Windows.
With Gnome Shell, Gnome people are trying to change the way we use the desktop, using new paradigms in term of UI design. They are taking a risk in this area, and that's something which defer from the approach used by the KDE team.

Yes, and I've even tested it. You always have a menu/task bar, with small desktop radars etc... What I mean, is that the global UI design always uses old paradigms inherited from Windows.
With Gnome Shell, Gnome people are trying to change the way we use the desktop, using new paradigms in term of UI design. They are taking a risk in this area, and that's something which defer from the approach used by the KDE team.

Small desktop radars are not required. You can use the cloned "expose/spaces" features in KDE 4 as well. With KDE 4 you simply have more options of setting it up "the way you want". Hell even the whole idea of a "traditional" desktop is not default. KDE requires no menu bar as well (hasn't for a long time).

I'm sorry but some of these "revelutionary features of Gnome 3.0" can be found in desktop's dating back to the Amiga and Atari circa 1985.

Most of the things changed in KDE4 are not visible by the end user as well. In term of UI design, KDE4 has not changed much of the previous known paradigm in KDE3.
The underlying technology used by Gnome 3.0 may not have a total redesign (despite the use of new components like clutter, vala and other things) but the changes will be more visible from a user point of view.

Originally Posted by spykes

As it's still under heavy development, I think it's a bit early to say that for the time being... Nothing is definitive for now.

I understand your point of view, but KDE 4's Plasma is a big change to the old paradigm of the desktop. KDE 4 overall is very different from the third version, but Gnome with Gnome shell isn't going to make it revolutionary.

GNOME Shell from my point of view isn't a spectacular feature, nor something that is going to be liked by the end user as well. (for example, I don't want to see all the time my recent docs...). I like much more the expose features of which deanjo writes about, plus the Lancelot Plasma widget than Gnome Shell.

A new paradigm could be something like Symphony OS, but you need also usability.

GNOME Shell from my point of view isn't a spectacular feature, nor something that is going to be liked by the end user as well. (for example, I don't want to see all the time my recent docs...).

That's the problem when you are trying to implement other paradigms... You take the risk to be disliked by the mass used to previous things.
However I prefer they try to do that, instead of just copying what proprietary OSes do.
I will give Gnome Shell its chance.

I'm all for having GNOME-Shell being available as an OPTION -- not the default interface. Completely changing the way users interact with their desktop is a good way to alienate them.

I think some of the new features in the shell could be really neat, but the learning curve for new users (or users that have been using GNOME for a while) will be too great to justify the change.

As long as they keep gnome-panel supported, one should be able to manually arrange the desktop in the same way. That's what we'll do with Nexradix if GNOME-Shell ends up being mandatory. Otherwise, we'll probably have to switch to XFCE.

I really wish developers in both the Free Software and the proprietary development worlds would realize that making major interface changes hurts more than helps. If they really feel a feature is a necessary improvment, they should either gradually move to the new design, or make the old interface default and let the user manually select the new one.

Has anyone switched to Gnome from KDE? If you did, do you like your choice?

I am contemplating the switch. KDE 4 is crap, imho and too many applications don't work right or work at all anymore on the KDE desktop. It is my impression, that KDE developers now care more about the aesthetics and the visuals rather than functionality and that applications work sufficiently. The focus seems to be on that way too heavily.

Anyway, I didn't like Gnome last time I tried it (I think Ubuntu's current release was at 7.10 back then). But, I might have to re-visit it since too many problems are in KDE 4 (from my p.o.v.). I am sure KDE fans will have a different opinion and raise several excuses.